About your Search

20121125
20121125
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
he'll appoint susan rice. i'm not a fab of -- fan of hers but i think she'll be confirmed. john kerry might be a worse secretary of state so maybe one goes ahead and lets him have the secretary of state of wants. other maybe one votes against it as senators say she wasn't forth coming in september and she should have known better than to say what she said but since democrats control the senate i assume she'll get concerned. >> chris: what's wrong with john kerry as secretary of state? >> susan rice is nor interventionist. >> john kerry has been against intervening in every war. iraq, he was for it before he was against it. i think susan rice might go with juan and say the light footprint thing isn't working out. >> if one things we're in an incredibly dangerous moment thanks to the light footprint. maybe susan rice would be more alarmed than john kerr. >> chris: kirsten, do you think the president will name her? >> i don't know but if he does, it -- that kind of arrogance, could be his under doing because if she's put under oath and forced to go through and answer these questions abou
or john kerry or someone else, there will be questions about a new internationalism, not a liberal intervention that isn't about bombs, bases, intervention and rebuilding america's relationship with the world and dealing with the problems of our time like climate crisis, nuclear proliferation, hunger and how to lead to a global economic policy. it's issues we have not done a good job in dealing with, nor will it. >> the trouble with that, though, is that we actually don't have the money as a result of the choices of the people who would be voting to confirm or not confirm ambassador rice. if you only have the money for the military. the pentagon is well funded. your regional commander could go out. i agree with your critique. the way to get to the source of the critique is not that, you know, susan rice or anybody else doesn't understood what you said. it's to follow the money and give the u.s. the tools. >> shouldn't we rethink where the money goes? one of the reasons diplomatic security is underfunded. the cuts between the state department. the balance between state, diplomacy an
that in any confirmation hearing, whether it's susan rice or john kerry, there will be questions raised about a new internationalism. one that is not a neoliberal or liberal interventionism that isn't about bombs, bases, intervention. but about rebuilding america's relationship with the world and dealing with the major problems of our time, like climate crisis, nuclear proliferation, hunger and how america can lead a global economic recovery. these are issues liberal interventionism has not done a good job dealing with. >> the trouble with that, though, is that we actually don't have the money as a result of the choices of the people who would be voting to confirm or not confirm ambassador rice. if you only have the money for the military solution because the pentagon is well funded and your regional commander has much more ability to go out and act on behalf of the u.s. than the ambassador does. so i agree with your critique, but the way to get to the source of the critique is not that susan rice doesn't understand, but it's to follow the money and -- >> but should we rethink our priorities
of senators who ran i think first in 1983 like john kerry. he said in his campaign the issue never came up because there was no clash. there was no conflict. part of the deal was, i mean, look, obama and speaker boehner would have a much harder time making a deal because they had problems in both of their parties as they say, but in talking about this with them if they'd had -- what's the word? -- courage to say let's make a deal and go out, get before the microphones and the cameras and say this is what it's going to be, and this is going to be painful, and we're going to ask all democrats and republicans to vote for it because we have to protect our financial future, because that's what it's about at the end. they essentially told me they thought it would work, that they could have done it. and, of course, they did not. yes. >> are bob, that's a good lead-in to my question. the grand bargain that came to the floor towards the end, the president put entitlements on the table. i don't recall the world unraveling from that notion. how real do you suppose that proposal was, and are we likely
that were important to us, we sent john kerry to sudan, that's a level of engagement that we need to step up. what we're seeing here, this rebel group taking a city of a million people, carving this area into keystones, kind of imposing terror there, precipitated in the passing of 3 million lives. >> we have to be engaged in a sustained way. we have been involved there. u.s. military trained a congo battalion that has proven effective. but it's only one. it's all about security. they don't have the security forces in that region. if we could work actively to train security forces we could make an enormous difference. >> interesting that you say that, anecdotely, some of our people lost their car in a ditch, the army guys pulled up to help get the people out after ditch, here we go, it's going to be bribery. they brought the car out, they waved good-bye. they said, no problem. it turned out to be the one unit of their armed we trained, so this progress is possible and, as you know, this country was the subject of the single piece of legislation that barack obama sponsored while he was in the
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)